create_container

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that the container can be started after creation and that VMID is auto-assigned if not provided, it lacks critical information such as required permissions, whether this is a destructive/mutative operation (implied by 'Create' but not explicit), potential rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on failure. For a complex creation tool with 12 parameters, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence stating the purpose, followed by a comprehensive parameter list. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating defaults into the parameter descriptions more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core functionality.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (12 parameters, creation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description does a good job covering inputs and basic behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, and side effects, which are important for a creation tool. The parameter explanations are thorough, but behavioral context is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for any parameters. The description compensates fully by providing detailed explanations for all 12 parameters, including examples (e.g., 'pve' for node, template format), defaults, optional vs. required status, and guidance on how to find values (e.g., using list_storage_content for templates). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new LXC container from a template'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_vm (which creates virtual machines) and clone_guest (which clones existing guests), establishing clear differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for usage by mentioning that templates can be found using the list_storage_content tool with content_type='vztmpl', which helps guide the agent to necessary prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_vm or clone_guest, nor does it mention any exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.